The more I think about this, the more sure I am that there would be some sort of abandonment of all rights at any location CVS chose to depart. The only circumstances under which I could see CVS maintaining control would be if there was a lease and they were to continue to pay rent, and I don't think they are paying anything. Furthermore, Target would be nuts to have signed leases that don't require continuous operation...pseudo3d wrote: ↑January 17th, 2024, 9:29 am I can't believe that there wouldn't be some sort of clause to allow Target to take back control of any pharmacies CVS closed, either by forcing them to stay open, allowing them to re-lease to a third party, or just cancel the lease altogether and recycle it as store space.
As mentioned before I don't recall any discussion of CVS entering lease agreements or rents; later I am going to dig through their old earnings reports to see if there is any change in rental expense after they took control of the Target pharmacies so we have a definitive answer. They may not verbalize it in their press releases but the public financials will speak to what is going on. I think Target is just giving them the space free for the traffic and goodwill it brings to the brand.
If there is such a deal in which CVS can maintain full rights to dead space inside Target stores in perpetuity, then it would be because of very poor decision making by the CEO and General Counsel. In my opinion would be such a massive lapse in judgment that investors would demand their dismissal as "the last straw" after all the other issues the last few years. Although he's made some bad decisions I don't think Brian Cornell is that dumb... Worse case scenario it could be litigated in court where I think Target would be able to get a settlement to end the agreement with CVS but I could see Target having to write a check with many zeroes on it to buy back their rights.